3 ms·

The idea that people should have fewer children struck me as cultural suicide when I first encountered it in the 1990s, way before climate change became a commo

The idea that people should have fewer children struck me as cultural suicide when I first encountered it in the 1990s, way before climate change became a commonplace topic. Having kids has always been a leap of faith. Does anyone think it's "scarier" to have kids now than it was during the Depression, WW2, AIDS epidemic, Cold War, post-9/11, etc? If your philosophy includes not having kids, then your philosophy will go away on its own in a few decades. Whatever the world will look like 20-50 years from now, it will exclude those people and ideas who opted out of life. On one hand, it's those people's problems. On the other hand, as someone living in the West, I am very much "in the same boat" with these people. I suspect the danger to our the kids 20-50 years from now will be consequences of demographic decline much more than climate change. This feels sinister. Why is the idea that the best thing you can do for the future is to die out so popular? If you wanted to destroy a people/country/humanity, you'd work hard to spread the idea of not having kids. So who's doing this?

nisegami 5y ago
>I suspect the danger to our the kids 20-50 years from now will be consequences of demographic decline much more than climate change. My kids will face no such consequences on account of me not forcing them into this world. What the rest of you get up to is not of much concern to me.
- dTal 5y ago
  Why do you only have empathy for your own (potential) children?
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    I am not the person you responded to, but in the context of that reply, my answer would be because I played no part in other people’s decision to have children. Note that this is not about no empathy overall, but in the context of empathy due to effects of declining population.
rsj_hn 5y ago
Yes, it's sinister and really unhealthy. People, on balance, are a blessing, and love of humanity is a prerequisite to having a civil society. These misanthropic beliefs are primarily limited to elites, who have become so decadent as to hate mankind. You have Prince Phillip, the Duke of Edinburough saying "If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels." Also some of the more fanatical environmental groups are less about loving the environment than hating people. You also see similar sentiments expressed in modern architecture -- the idea that architecture shouldn't be beautiful or comfortable because people should be uncomfortable, etc, as in the famous debate between Christopher Alexander and Peter Eisenman. This idea of hating your own group or even hating all mankind is basically the extreme end of modern decadence, a luxury primarily afforded to a subset of people in the wealthiest western nations. Fortunately, it is not shared by the bulk of humanity, or even by ordinary blue collar people in wealthy nations.
- fleddr 5y ago
  In just a 100 years time, we have completely wrecked this planet. Decimated wildlife, emptied the oceans, spread our pollution everywhere. Humanity as a whole very much behaves like a cancer, and that makes it hard to love ourselves. The goal isn't necessarily self-hate, it's damage control. Furthermore, consider the option that a lower population long term can be a positive to humanity itself.
  - xyzelement 5y ago
    > Humanity as a whole very much behaves like a cancer, and that makes it hard to love ourselves. I guess I see that kind of attitude as the primary thing and then arguments like climate change etc as post-fact justification. Humanity has been and always will be a mix of beautiful and terrible. In the same time window you're talking about, we made huge strides in equality, science, reached for the starts, explored the depth, etc. Go back decades, centuries and millennia and you will find something to be depressed about. Crusades? Slavery? Pandemics? Wars? Those things have existed for ever, and yet humanity has always found a way to move forward, trending towards better/safer/more equal. If you believe that "humans are as cancer", you are as justified today as you had ever been, but as a human, forgive me for not being interested when someone who loathes my species suggests it'd be better if we died out.
rhn_mk1 5y ago
I think you're misrepresenting this. The problem opposite to dying out is overgrowth. How do you distinguish which philosophy is trying to reduce overgrowth, and which is promoting dying out? Why do you think the article talks about one, and not the other?
caskstrength 5y ago
> On one hand, it's those people's problems. On the other hand, as someone living in the West, I am very much "in the same boat" with these people. I suspect the danger to our the kids 20-50 years from now will be consequences of demographic decline much more than climate change. "West" can just import as many young people as it needs. Already educated and ready for work. Demographic decline is only possible in "rich" countries that intentionally restrict immigration.
- bigodbiel 5y ago
  > If your philosophy includes not having kids, then your philosophy will go away on its own in a few decades. Whatever the world will look like 20-50 years from now, it will exclude those people and ideas who opted out of life it’s not only workforce but an ideological suicide.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    I do not have the same ideologies my parents do.
vbtemp 5y ago
I wish I could give you more than one upvote here. PSA: I'd also like to point out sometimes people who are smart but suffer from anxiety or depression concoct elaborate philosophical systems in order to rationalize their maladaptive thoughts and behaviors. For all readers who have anti natalist passion: Depression and anxiety are so common now, please get help if you need it. Please do so before diving into philosophies or movements that reinforce depressive, morbid, or otherwise unhealthy views and actions, like antinatalism
archagon 5y ago
What difference does it make? No culture lasts forever, and we’ll be long gone anyway. If you want your philosophy to be preserved, write a book.

nisegami 5y ago

>I suspect the danger to our the kids 20-50 years from now will be consequences of demographic decline much more than climate change. My kids will face no such consequences on account of me not forcing them into this world. What the rest of you get up to is not of much concern to me.

dTal 5y ago
Why do you only have empathy for your own (potential) children?
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  I am not the person you responded to, but in the context of that reply, my answer would be because I played no part in other people’s decision to have children. Note that this is not about no empathy overall, but in the context of empathy due to effects of declining population.

rsj_hn 5y ago

Yes, it's sinister and really unhealthy. People, on balance, are a blessing, and love of humanity is a prerequisite to having a civil society. These misanthropic beliefs are primarily limited to elites, who have become so decadent as to hate mankind. You have Prince Phillip, the Duke of Edinburough saying "If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels." Also some of the more fanatical environmental groups are less about loving the environment than hating people. You also see similar sentiments expressed in modern architecture -- the idea that architecture shouldn't be beautiful or comfortable because people should be uncomfortable, etc, as in the famous debate between Christopher Alexander and Peter Eisenman. This idea of hating your own group or even hating all mankind is basically the extreme end of modern decadence, a luxury primarily afforded to a subset of people in the wealthiest western nations. Fortunately, it is not shared by the bulk of humanity, or even by ordinary blue collar people in wealthy nations.

fleddr 5y ago
In just a 100 years time, we have completely wrecked this planet. Decimated wildlife, emptied the oceans, spread our pollution everywhere. Humanity as a whole very much behaves like a cancer, and that makes it hard to love ourselves. The goal isn't necessarily self-hate, it's damage control. Furthermore, consider the option that a lower population long term can be a positive to humanity itself.
- xyzelement 5y ago
  > Humanity as a whole very much behaves like a cancer, and that makes it hard to love ourselves. I guess I see that kind of attitude as the primary thing and then arguments like climate change etc as post-fact justification. Humanity has been and always will be a mix of beautiful and terrible. In the same time window you're talking about, we made huge strides in equality, science, reached for the starts, explored the depth, etc. Go back decades, centuries and millennia and you will find something to be depressed about. Crusades? Slavery? Pandemics? Wars? Those things have existed for ever, and yet humanity has always found a way to move forward, trending towards better/safer/more equal. If you believe that "humans are as cancer", you are as justified today as you had ever been, but as a human, forgive me for not being interested when someone who loathes my species suggests it'd be better if we died out.

rhn_mk1 5y ago

I think you're misrepresenting this. The problem opposite to dying out is overgrowth. How do you distinguish which philosophy is trying to reduce overgrowth, and which is promoting dying out? Why do you think the article talks about one, and not the other?

caskstrength 5y ago

> On one hand, it's those people's problems. On the other hand, as someone living in the West, I am very much "in the same boat" with these people. I suspect the danger to our the kids 20-50 years from now will be consequences of demographic decline much more than climate change. "West" can just import as many young people as it needs. Already educated and ready for work. Demographic decline is only possible in "rich" countries that intentionally restrict immigration.

bigodbiel 5y ago
> If your philosophy includes not having kids, then your philosophy will go away on its own in a few decades. Whatever the world will look like 20-50 years from now, it will exclude those people and ideas who opted out of life it’s not only workforce but an ideological suicide.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  I do not have the same ideologies my parents do.

vbtemp 5y ago

I wish I could give you more than one upvote here. PSA: I'd also like to point out sometimes people who are smart but suffer from anxiety or depression concoct elaborate philosophical systems in order to rationalize their maladaptive thoughts and behaviors. For all readers who have anti natalist passion: Depression and anxiety are so common now, please get help if you need it. Please do so before diving into philosophies or movements that reinforce depressive, morbid, or otherwise unhealthy views and actions, like antinatalism

archagon 5y ago

What difference does it make? No culture lasts forever, and we’ll be long gone anyway. If you want your philosophy to be preserved, write a book.